Mknies From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 11 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
Hello everyone,
I am working on a design for a trans-oceanic, supersonic business/personal jet. I do realise the obstacles i must overcome, and would like input from all of the other techies on A.net. Here are a few questions to crunch on:
1. Classic Airliner Cockpit or Fighter Style Cockpit?
2. 1, 2 , or 3 engines?
3. Glass or Steam Gauges
4. How many Pax?
5. What kind of Pax arrangements?
6. Canard or Traditional Hstab?
Any other observations would be greatly appriceated! Also, if this thing gets any further than paper i would gladly share credit of the design with anyone who had any viable feature included.
Have fun, Cheers!
~Matt
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
Quoting Mknies (Thread starter):
1. Classic Airliner Cockpit or Fighter Style Cockpit?
A: Classic. The pilots want a comfortable work place. Since they don't have to hunt MiG-28s (or flip them the bird) there's no need for Fighter Style. Form follows function.
2. 1, 2 , or 3 engines?
A: 2. Gives redundancy at minimal complexity.
3. Glass or Steam Gauges
A: Even Cessnas have glass nowadays. More versatile, more informative, and cheaper to maintain.
4. How many Pax?
A: The fewer, the less noise. Try to make it 40-80.
5. What kind of Pax arrangements?
A: The higher the cost, the more space per pax. If the ticket is like current First, you have to seat people at least like current Biz. Shorter flight enables tighter layouts, but only up to a point.
6. Canard or Traditional Hstab?
A: Whatever works for you. Canard looks cooler
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
What cruise Mach and altitude were you thinking of?
I think for personal use, no more than 8 people is okay, unless you are taking your extended family on board.
You could also estimate (though crude) scaled dimensions with weight using "square-cube" as it's called. That is, all things equal, making a plane 1.2 time bigger than an original (scalewise not stretching), makes the wing area approx 1.22 =1.44 times the original and the weight 1.23 = 1.728 times the original.
For example, again this is a very crude estimation, say your plane has 8 pax and we compare it to Concorde's 100 by scale alone. Let's say the payload varies linearly with weight of the plane, the Concorde's MTOW multiplied by the pax ratio of your plane to Concorde give an initial MTOW estimate of 33,000 lbs. Doing the other calculations give the theoretical 8-pax plane a length of 88 feet and wing area of 700 sq ft. Remember, this is a scale of Concorde; while coefficients of lift and drag don't change with scale, once you change the overall shape, the numbers will.
Here's an idea of perspective, the Boeing/NASA HCST and the old Boeing 2707 SST concepts were to be approx 280 feet long with 300 pax with an MTOW about near a 742. Using square-cube against Concorde, the numbers are about 5% off.
PurdueAv2003 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 246 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1655 times:
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 2): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
A: The fewer, the less noise. Try to make it 40-80.
That is a big personal jet!
I think he's carrying the entire business on this business jet!
One consideration you would have to make with a supersonic biz jet is that this a/c will probably have a much more variable mission than the Concorde. Due to noise constraints the Concorde was confined to "Coast-to-Coast" operations. Only rarely did it operate for extended periods over land, which required subsonic operations, due to the aircraft having been designed for peak efficiency at supersonic speeds. A supersonic-capable biz jet has to be flexible enough to operate efficiently at both subsonic and supersonic to meet the varied mission objectives (ie. ORD to LHR instead of just JFK to LHR). The wing design would have to be different from what we have seen in the past to properly achieve this design objective. Although a weight penalty, a variable-geometry wing may work well in this application.
FutureUApilot From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1365 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
I would base this kind of jet off the Cessna Citation X, roughly at least. The Citation X can fly at 0.92 Mach, so it's pretty close to the sound barrier. Maybe put some delta wings on it and some carnards in the front, and make it more aerodynamic. At school today I will work on this design in my engineering class, i'll post a picture as soon as it's done!
CRJonBeez From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 317 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
unfortunately, the fuel consumption limits the time of the C750 in the air. on trans oceanic flights, you will see gulfstreams beating the cit x to the destination due to fuel demands. as for time=money, the citation x is a fantastic airplane for coast to coast, but not long haul IMO.
as for the wings of the plane, they're damn clean. it's tought to beat if you ask me. they get up relatively quick with no slat assistance. not to mention the ridiculous span and sweep it already has.
sorry! didn't mean to turn this into an argument, just throwing in my two pennies!
as for designing an airplane, that seems kinda expensive. "the quickest way to become a millionaire is to be a billionaire and start an airline" per richard branson.
Mknies From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 11 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
Thanks for all the excellent responses! As a note, I am not going to throw money at this project, just develop the technical drawings and hopefully pique someones interest. If that doesnt happen, at least I I'll have the drawings. I'll try to get some pictures as soon as i can. Thank you all!
Cheers
~Matt
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 11 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
